Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intermediate forms now evidence against evolution, says creationist
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 1 of 20 (513023)
06-24-2009 6:42 AM


I was aimlessly avoiding work in the depths of the internet today when I started reading about long-beaked echidnas; which a chap named Muse Opiang has been studying for the last four years. Whilst reading various press reports about what he'd uncovered (including the fact that they're one of the rare mammals in which females tend to be bigger than males), I stumbled across this account, written by the science reporter for the Institue for Creation Research, under the title 'Egg-laying echidna could not have evolved'.
I was shocked enough by the bizarreness of this article that I felt I had to share it with someone. Aside from the cynicism of the writer in falsely pretending Opiang's research supports his nonsense, how does someone come to the conclusion that the existence of an animal which shares mammalian and reptillian features is damning evidence against evolution with common descent? What's going on in this man's head?
Anyone with access to ASM Journals who's interested to read about what Opiang really learnt about echidna ecology can do so here.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 06-24-2009 7:11 AM caffeine has replied
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2009 7:18 AM caffeine has not replied
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 06-24-2009 12:08 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 2 of 20 (513026)
06-24-2009 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by caffeine
06-24-2009 6:42 AM


Can't help but think this deserves more to be in Proposed New Topics than Links and Information.
Aside from the cynicism of the writer in falsely pretending Opiang's research supports his nonsense, how does someone come to the conclusion that the existence of an animal which shares mammalian and reptillian features is damning evidence against evolution with common descent? What's going on in this man's head?
What's going on in this man's head? A desperate attempt to prop up mythology against the damning evidence of reality. Creationists aren't interested in examining evidence to establish the truth; they interested in protecting the bible against any suggestion of falsity. Thus we get this parade of absurd Creationist arguments that show no sign of ever even attempting to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by caffeine, posted 06-24-2009 6:42 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by caffeine, posted 06-24-2009 10:28 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 20 (513027)
06-24-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by caffeine
06-24-2009 6:42 AM


it's easy
Hi caffeine,
Nice article
Anyone with access to ASM Journals who's interested to read about what Opiang really learnt about echidna ecology can do so here.
Your link worked for me.
... how does someone come to the conclusion that the existence of an animal which shares mammalian and reptillian features is damning evidence against evolution with common descent?
It's easy, you start with incredulity - how can anyone explain how {X} came to be? Thus you establish that it poses problems for a natural explanation, and then say that it's easy for a god-who-can-make-anything to create.
Doesn't matter what {X} is.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by caffeine, posted 06-24-2009 6:42 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 4 of 20 (513036)
06-24-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Jack
06-24-2009 7:11 AM


Can't help but think this deserves more to be in Proposed New Topics than Links and Information.
Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm still a bit unused to these forums. I didn't think there was too much to discuss and debate; more just something to stare at in amazement.
What's going on in this man's head? A desperate attempt to prop up mythology against the damning evidence of reality. Creationists aren't interested in examining evidence to establish the truth; they interested in protecting the bible against any suggestion of falsity. Thus we get this parade of absurd Creationist arguments that show no sign of ever even attempting to understand.
And the process you and RAZD describe thus leads to both the lack of taxon intermediate between the major divisions of life and the existence of taxon intermediate between the majot divisions of life being presented as if they prove the same point. Incredible mental gymnastics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 06-24-2009 7:11 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 06-24-2009 10:51 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 5 of 20 (513038)
06-24-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by caffeine
06-24-2009 10:28 AM


Mental gymnastics? Or the mental equivalent of a couch potato
And the process you and RAZD describe thus leads to both the lack of taxon intermediate between the major divisions of life and the existence of taxon intermediate between the majot divisions of life being presented as if they prove the same point. Incredible mental gymnastics.
I don't think it's incredible mental gymnastics but rather the complete opposite: it's ill thought out dim witted nonsense at its best. The creos aren't thinking*, and they aren't trying to create a coherent alternative, they're just swinging away wildly in the hope something sticks - most of the time they're not trying to convince anyone with any understanding either.
* - Admittedly, there are probably a few to whom this generalisation does not apply, but only a few.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by caffeine, posted 06-24-2009 10:28 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 06-27-2009 1:11 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 20 (513041)
06-24-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by caffeine
06-24-2009 6:42 AM


OMG, I've never thought of this before! Thank you for the link! I now know with absolute certainty that evolution is a disproven theory.
According to the theory of evolution, lots of "micro"evolution adds up to "macro"evolution. In other words, it's either mammal or reptilian. Proto-mammals can't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by caffeine, posted 06-24-2009 6:42 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-26-2009 8:24 AM Taz has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 7 of 20 (513200)
06-26-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
06-24-2009 12:08 PM


I hope you're joking Taz.
As per this article, this claim is just ridiculous. The creationists demand a transitional fossil, then claim it could not be one. See their logic?

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 06-24-2009 12:08 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 06-26-2009 12:24 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 20 (513220)
06-26-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Teapots&unicorns
06-26-2009 8:24 AM


Teapots writes:
I hope you're joking Taz.
What are you talking about? I am absolutely 100% not joking. For years I've been told that I'm not going to find a creature that's half dog and half monkey to link the two together because that's not how evolution works. Evolution is suppose to be so gradual that it's either all dog or all monkey. Now, you're telling me that something that's half monkey and half dog is evidence of evolution?
This is why most scientists don't believe in evolution and now an increasing number of scientists are turning toward the bible for truth.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-26-2009 8:24 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-26-2009 12:44 PM Taz has replied
 Message 16 by bluescat48, posted 06-28-2009 6:29 AM Taz has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 9 of 20 (513222)
06-26-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
06-26-2009 12:24 PM


Misguided
For years I've been told that I'm not going to find a creature that's half dog and half monkey to link the two together because that's not how evolution works. Evolution is suppose to be so gradual that it's either all dog or all monkey. Now, you're telling me that something that's half monkey and half dog is evidence of evolution?
I said that I hoped you were joking because this is the evidence for evolution. I would like to point out that this animal is not half monkey and half dog as you mistakenly pointed out; it shares both mammilian and reptilic characteristics. Please keep that in mind.
You should also know that your claim
...so gradual that it's either all dog or all monkey
is completely false. This would be totally irrelevant evidence, as well as misguided. Gradual (note word choice) results in many transitional forms such as (bluntly- not canon/fact) 0.25 fish/0.75 mammal; 0.5 fish/0.5 mammal; 0.75 fish/0.25 mammal and so on. The whole point is that evolution works slowly, something that you don't seem to be getting.
This is why most scientists don't believe in evolution and now an increasing number of scientists are turning toward the bible for truth.
Contrary to your beliefs, 95% of all scientists hold evolution to be true.
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 06-26-2009 12:24 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Son, posted 06-26-2009 1:11 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 06-28-2009 3:50 AM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 10 of 20 (513225)
06-26-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Teapots&unicorns
06-26-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Misguided
Taz is being sarcastic, you would know if you looked at his other posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-26-2009 12:44 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-26-2009 3:29 PM Son has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 11 of 20 (513235)
06-26-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Son
06-26-2009 1:11 PM


Re: Misguided
Sorry, I haven't been here long, so I assumed he was being sincere. My mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Son, posted 06-26-2009 1:11 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Son, posted 06-26-2009 3:59 PM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 12 of 20 (513239)
06-26-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Teapots&unicorns
06-26-2009 3:29 PM


Re: Misguided
Don't worry, when creationnists make claims, I always feel like they are being sarcastic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-26-2009 3:29 PM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 13 of 20 (513303)
06-27-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
06-24-2009 10:51 AM


Re: Mental gymnastics? Or the mental equivalent of a couch potato
This claim is very similar to another by Duane Gish that I used to think was a one-of-a-kind, but then years later I recently saw it used again by somebody else, plus there's this "new" one as well.
In a four-page Impact article on Archaeopteryx, Gish spent three pages regurgitating all their standard claims meant to show conclusively that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird and not one bit reptile." But then at the end of the article he then brought up the claims of two anti-evolutionists that one of Archaeopteryx fossils was a fake, that somebody had added feather impressions to a reptile fossil. Thus Gish triumphantly proclaimed that Archaeopteryx is either "100% bird and not one bit reptile" or it's "100% reptile and not one bit bird", it is not intermediate between reptiles and birds.
No, it's not mental gymnastics, nor is it really a case that they're not thinking. I think it's that they are trapped in a mental prison of their own making, one whose bars are built of their grossly wrong preconceptions; ironically, rather than seeking to escape their prison, they have to exert all their energy towards holding their prison's bars together. It's not that they're not thinking, but rather that they must constantly guard against the kinds of thinking that would reveal their folly to themselves.
I had a friend at church (UU) who had previously been an extreme fundamentalist. For years, he had to turn a blind eye to everyday observations that contradicted his beliefs, he had to constantly practice self-deception (this is how he himself described it to me). Finally one day, that constantly self-deception had exhausted him, so he took a hard critical look at his beliefs (basically applying the Matt 7:20 test), found them to be wrong, and became an atheist and thorough humanist and a much more spiritual person.
And, no, yet again creationists are not in the least bit trying to create a coherent alternative. Their goal is to discredit science in any way that they can, and that is what they are doing. What is Archaeopteryx exactly? They don't care, just so long as they can claim that it's not intermediate. Echidnas? Same thing.
Creationists are arriving at absurdly false conclusions directly because of their beliefs. Which thus fails the Matt 7:20 test yet again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 06-24-2009 10:51 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 06-27-2009 10:59 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 14 of 20 (513340)
06-27-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dwise1
06-27-2009 1:11 PM


Re: Mental gymnastics? Or the mental equivalent of a couch potato
At what point does the willful self-deception (lying to oneself) become lying to others?
Creationists go to great lengths to make up "what if" stories to explain away the contradictions between their religious beliefs and scientific findings. They ignore data, misrepresent data, manufacture false data, and violate every tenet of the scientific method and logic, all in order to claim that their religious beliefs are supported by science. Creation "science" is the golden standard for this deliberate misrepresentation, with ID coming in a close second. The Discovery Institute, aptly called the "Dishonesty Institute" is the standard-bearer for ID and, though they would deny it, for creation "science."
We see this misrepresentation very often with the "intermediate" question, the subject of this thread, but the purported "science" supporting the biblical global flood about 4,350 years ago has to be the single most outlandish example of creation "science" and the "what if" approach to the scientific method.
At what point does this willful self-deception become out-and-out lying?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 06-27-2009 1:11 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 20 (513346)
06-28-2009 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Teapots&unicorns
06-26-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Misguided
Crackpots&unicorns writes:
I said that I hoped you were joking because this is the evidence for evolution. I would like to point out that this animal is not half monkey and half dog as you mistakenly pointed out; it shares both mammilian and reptilic characteristics. Please keep that in mind.
Oh, and half mammal and half reptile is better how?
is completely false. This would be totally irrelevant evidence, as well as misguided. Gradual (note word choice) results in many transitional forms such as (bluntly- not canon/fact) 0.25 fish/0.75 mammal; 0.5 fish/0.5 mammal; 0.75 fish/0.25 mammal and so on. The whole point is that evolution works slowly, something that you don't seem to be getting.
So, somewhere in there I should be able to find .5fish/.5 mammal, right? And yet we don't have a single example of a creature with any kind of combination between fish and mammal. Evolution is a myth!
Contrary to your beliefs, 95% of all scientists hold evolution to be true.
Typical lies and propaganda by atheists and satanists! Evolution is a theory in crisis. Creation is truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-26-2009 12:44 PM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 06-28-2009 8:53 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 18 by AZPaul3, posted 06-28-2009 12:03 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024